Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93283 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96927 invoked from network); 12 May 2016 17:02:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 May 2016 17:02:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@golemon.com; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@golemon.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@golemon.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.48 mail-lf0-f48.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.48] ([209.85.215.48:33488] helo=mail-lf0-f48.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AC/E2-28272-327B4375 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id y84so75581363lfc.0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 10:02:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=golemon-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=bRg1xpyt8a9wcVMV4/+E1PgmSwgCTH+FuahOkA3LC1A=; b=IQ4QRIMzlggLxBxuIqE8SnvaWbfKQK3fEflTD7qwTNIwFd6dSaIAC54FeKMDKxUEdp QvQTrp36qPcfxvUEUAJJbOuQeyVSHkS/OVIuDL/gZRRzqsM1KIQTkrh9cw87BmrCGene RsIcumY082pTexIjQL2L1YKc7nUXv+idljVnBX9VSG8uy040anhXCfwKnAUntRRkO3SZ GSPW0w4F+nIr8ei9rJims4vR+RLG3MT4KM6xf00VJHlslipMpgldtCtwxNt9U7XiATJP dHR6IWuZzVK3330DNyrdx2pir5Kfyh40ar1D6tUzm9f5zS6+GwSUCVAW67avZG1zykQo 0Lzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=bRg1xpyt8a9wcVMV4/+E1PgmSwgCTH+FuahOkA3LC1A=; b=UMJR0eiDfsJNaSff4svtf7MyrSAnN9PVw28rBJM2PC6bB0uSWHlb8MFHd3trv83idi o6oLdDRiKWdkOyx5uHiVfYFPxwGKY01dYC9riNlEtEBZdKsD25FNtJoYK1o4Z0HweP+x QEQKN5AaMBvRJDGwvtSbxxlaWCsgOH8EJKR4YtdjGgo/QOnGDi9XX5E+iqkfjo60sVCj fpd3vMvyvgY/D+Dt8401bJp5+S8+laXhnRrnyrOmjv0vqQb7uJQxVdg4KWx2Tv+7FYle cDVuYYwzsBHCpMmw5h9vOxW3TtaXyKiXmMr2II1+zJOspr4aNEvp37zhCqar4xNTZVGs tOow== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXXikukqJ/BCTu24oWT3wAUa0I2xLwLNXv+Q+3BjE4YFflKL/LyAM6tyRoM8tLWsbvqMfk4UG1lfUih2g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.208.76 with SMTP id h73mr4998146lfg.74.1463072544731; Thu, 12 May 2016 10:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: php@golemon.com Received: by 10.112.19.72 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2016 10:02:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [107.198.91.68] In-Reply-To: <92E7F8A8-0845-48A7-91B1-9554C5F66C9D@zend.com> References: <39071a01-a42c-0952-b3a8-b4769c79b56b@fleshgrinder.com> <0ac3be89-6fb4-610a-ef89-0928f264f96c@fleshgrinder.com> <71379db5-b7b8-78b3-ada5-eee34e6e22d6@fleshgrinder.com> <452ddb93-1f47-1d0f-4f24-bedbff506b27@gmail.com> <98.61.11104.A1D41375@pb1.pair.com> <7c94ca37-e188-dd2b-a66f-bb63bf03041a@gmail.com> <1463008795.1856219.605250569.74618FC4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <92E7F8A8-0845-48A7-91B1-9554C5F66C9D@zend.com> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:02:24 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Jg-G4WenZxRz7bM3r6lIXqb0bwk Message-ID: To: Zeev Suraski Cc: Quim Calpe , "davey@php.net" , Larry Garfield , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe Operator From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon) On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > Whether it's $$ or !# or $0 or any other random symbol doesn't really matter. > Agreed. > Here we have a completely optional syntactic sugar, > that's not nearly as widely useful as OOP or namespaces. > Very few things will be as widely useful as OOP or namespaces, so that comparison is a bit of a red herring. This construct is useful anywhere function call nesting pushes you past a readability threshold. That's not as ubiquitous as OOP as a whole, but it's pretty widespread. As widespread as fluent call chaining, in fact. > The question is whether the added complexity of a new operator, > a new symbol and the new semantics around them both are > worth the benefit of introducing them. > Agreed. There's a cost to every new token and parser rule on the compiler side, and there's a cognitive overhead on the script maintainer side as well. It seems we only disagree in the flexibility provided by better syntax and the ease of using google, stack-overflow, and php.net/manual. > IMHO it's not. > And I'll expect you to vote accordingly. No hard feelings. :) -Sara